? I've said about 100 times that there should be no patents
on
underlying information that the public knows. I've also said
that it is far
too easy to get a patent. I'm not sure we are
disagreeing here, other than that
I think that there are times
when the public does NOT know something and
therefore patents
can fulfill their original goal.
Can you name
one time when those skilled in the arts did not know the underlying information
that was disclosed in software patent?
You swipe example that people
here on Groklaw has shown is decade old technologies with the additional
provision that you use a touchscreen is good example of what happens when
lawyers instead of those skilled in the arts makes the evaluation of what is
worthy to patent.
The thing is that computer science as core branch of
math has been very extensively studied. It also a field when disclosure happen
all the time in the computer journals. You have spent lots of time talking about
how you from computer journals find that computer programming is an area where
there is plenty of research but somehow you fail to take the logical conclusion
of this.
Why do you continue reading this journals if software patents
are so useful? Should you not start reading patents instead if they are
useful?
Fact is that software development is innovative despite the
software patents and not even you that try to subvert people into accepting
software patents are really using them for the disclosure value.
Please,
get down from you white horse and admit you only support software patents
because the lawyers make moneny on them and you have a fairytale about some
inventor that nobody has heard about who benefited from software patent. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
